I assume Brooks chose to use the term glasnost because of one way that the word has been translated (openness), but Yeselson is right that glasnost did not help to preserve the USSR, as Gorbachev intended, but instead contributed to its collapse. A “Republican glasnost” would not herald the start of a renewed or revitalized GOP, but instead suggests one riven by its internal divisions and plagued by serious weaknesses. That very well might be what the near future holds for the Republican Party, but that need not conclude with the disintegration of the party.

It does suggest a period of political weakness for the next several years. During these years, the party may end up following the wills o’ the wisp that are Rubio and Ryan and others like them. That would lure Republicans onto the treacherous ground of adopting a modified Bushism without discarding most of Bushism’s most harmful elements of foreign policy adventurism, national security authoritarianism, and fiscal irresponsibility.

Rubio and Ryan have so far been offering the quick fix of “rebranding” and improved messaging, which takes for granted that the content being conveyed to the public is otherwise fine. The GOP hasn’t changed much at all since the election ended, and it would be unusual if it had. The party that shrugged off defeats in 2006 and 2008 as nothing more than flukes isn’t yet ready to make rapid adjustments to another defeat. More to the point, a party that still doesn’t fully understand why it lost in 2006 and 2008 won’t be able to make sense of its latest loss for some time.

My 78-year-old Father/lawyer/hater of unions and taxes/GOPer voted DEM for the first time in his LIFE this last election because of Obamacare, mostly. He has been on the board of a very respected hospital for 20 years, and welcomed Obamacare. Also, he was appalled that the GOP would try to stop ANYTHING to help the economy, in the name of hating Obama.

But they know how they won in 2010: emotional rejectionism, a weak economy, and roughly zero in the way of policy proposals. That’s probably the blueprint now.

Of course Brooks is being foolish by praising a few phrases in speeches as “reform”, without regard to any votes or policy proposals. But that’s what his salary depends on, so no one should be surprised.

Almost half of Republicans think that ACORN stole the election for Obama. Unless by “openness” one is talking about dismantling the Republican misinformation, disinformation and psy-ops network, I am not sure how Republicans can improve.

There’s some hope that the economy will improve by 2016 as well? And the demographic trends are going to keep on trending. It’s far from a lock but I’m cautiously optimistic (and who knows, they may nominate Santorum as ‘next-in-line’).

Well, CJ, it’s true that more people voted for Democrats in the House than for Republicans. But the GOP’s advantage in the House will last through 2020; and I believe I’ve read that even the pre-2010 House district lines would have allowed the GOP to retain control.

I’m reluctant to read too much into recent results and trends that can change, but I do agree with you that the GOP’s hand is weakening in presidential elections.

I am not persuaded that it matters, though, for the GOP’s behavior right now.

Consider the iron law of institutions– that folks within an institution are more concerned with their power within that institution than its power in the wider world.

And today’s GOP is purely tribal, with scarcely any ideological justification for any of its actions. All rank and file conservatives and all current GOP leadership were enthusiastically on board with all the Bush-era deficit creation and executive & federal power enhancing. Bush left office with around 30 percent approval of independents, around 65% approval from Republicans, and around 80% approval from “conservative Republicans”.

We can safely conclude that identity politics represents accounts for substantially all membership in the Republican Party.

There will be no Republican glasnost because it’s not in any Republican’s interests to advocate reform. Any argument can be stigmatized as disloyal, regardless of its content or ideology. (Bruce Bartlett, purged in 2005 for arguing that the GOP that controlled the presidency & Congress should do something to fix the deficits they’d created, exemplifies the problem).

In our polarized context, with most Republicans in safe districts, no Republican elected officials have any incentive to engage in reasoned discourse. Same for right-leaning and centrist pundits like Brooks, Salam, et al. They will continue to praise ciphers like Rubio and Ryan because their ideological bias and their book contracts demand it.

The absolute worst that can happen to a politician is an election loss; they can retreat to lobbying, or follow Sen. Demint into lucrative right-wing punditry. And if we’ve learned anything in the past decade, it’s that punditry is a zero-accountability profession. That’s an awful lot more fun than the path of folks like Frum, Bartlett, and Bob Inglis.

And the demographic trends are going to keep on trending. It’s far from a lock but I’m cautiously optimistic

Given that the demographic trends that favor Democrats are negative ones (increasing single motherhood, family dissolution, atomized individuals, increased immigration of the least successful Mexicans), I’m not certain why one should be optimistic, unless one cares more about the Democratic Party than about the country.